P-38L with higher boost

[Benny Moore]

You misunderstand me.  I am in no way under the impression that IL-2's portrayal of the boost situation is any more accurate than its flight model.  I used it as an example where the game backed up my own calculations, as well as those of Kweassa.  Kweassa, although disagreeing with me on the majority of the subject, did come to the independent conclusion that if you raise the power on both the P-38 and the Me-109 equally, the P-38 fares better.  If you do the mathematics, you will see this.

In all actuality, the IL-2 boost situation is indeed wrong - but it's wrong to the detriment of the United States ships, not slanted towards them.  They use lower than the highest approved boosts (64" as opposed to 66" cleared by the U.S.A.A.F., though not in the Pilots Manual) for the United States fighers, but they use the highest boost an Me-109 ever used.  Therefore, my example was intended to show that although the boosts in IL-2 are slanted against the U.S. airplanes, they still do better versus their historically rated opponents than the "officially" rated birds in that game.

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Benny Moore


In all actuality, the IL-2 boost situation is indeed wrong - but it's wrong to the detriment of the United States ships, not slanted towards them.  They use lower than the highest approved boosts (64" as opposed to 66" cleared by the U.S.A.A.F., though not in the Pilots Manual) for the United States fighers, but they use the highest boost an Me-109 ever used.  Therefore, my example was intended to show that although the boosts in IL-2 are slanted against the U.S. airplanes, they still do better versus their historically rated opponents than the "officially" rated birds in that game.

Irrelevant  because the FM is shady.

Bronk

[Benny Moore]

My point now is that I wasn't "cherry-picking" data, but was providing an example.  I agree that it's not to be taken as gospel because the IL-2 flight model is dodgy, but I wouldn't call it irrelevant as it reflects my calculations as well as those of Kweassa (who made a case against the P-38).

 

Originally posted by Kweassa
* Two Allisons at war emergency rating of 1,600hp to a plane with 17,500lbs combat weight = 0.18hp/lbs
* Two Allisons at war emergency rating generalized at 2,000hp to a plane with 17,500lbs combat weight = 0.23hp/lbs

 27% exaggeration in thrust:weight ratio in favor of the P-38L

* Single Daimler-Benz engine at war emergency rating of 1,800hp to a plane with 7,000lbs combat weight =  0.25hp/lbs
* Single Daimler-Benz engine at war emergency rating generalized at 2,000hp to a plane with 7,000lbs combat weight =  0.28hp/lbs

 12% exaggeration in thrust:weight ratio in favor of the Bf109G-14

 While I sincerely doubt you've actually calcualted this far, by dragging in field modification and unauthorized numbers for engine ratings at the 2,000hp figure for both planes you've neutered a 40% advantage in hp/lbs in favor of the 109, to a mere 20%. Basically, the larger the volume of exaggeration in available engine power, the smaller the gape between the P-38 and the 109 becomes.

P.S. Contrary to what Kweassa said, the combat weight of the P-38L is not 17,500 lb.  It's approximately 16,500 lb.  Still, if you recalculate, the argument still holds; the P-38 does better against the Me-109 when the boosts are raised equally on both.  The same is true of the P-51 and P-47 (and, I imagine, all heavy aircraft).

[Benny Moore]

Oh, there is one more thing.  Right now, in Aces High, the P-38L and the Me-109K are very evenly matched.  The P-38 is running at 60" Hg. MAP, which puts out 1,600 horsepower, and the 109 is running at 1.8 ata, which is 1,850 horsepower.  Now if we raise the P-38's rating to the officially cleared (though not in the Pilots Manual) 66", we get about 1,750 horsepower on the P-38.  Now, imagine how much better the P-38 would perform than the Me-109 in the game, under those conditions - and it's still running a lower rating.

Of course, then the Me-109 could be raised to 1.98 ata, which does 2,000 hp.  But then the P-38 could be similarly raised to 75", which also yields about 2,000 horsepower.  Since the 1,600 hp. P-38 does well against the 1,850 hp. Messerschmitt in Aces High, and since Kweassa and I both independently calculated that the P-38 does better versus the Me-109 the higher the boosts go, then I think it's safe to say that a 2000 hp. P-38 would do very well against a 2,000 hp. Me-109.  And 2000 horsepower isn't even the highest rating I've heard of a P-38L using in combat.

[Raptor]

109K performs better than the P38L in game now. If it had 20mm instead of 30mm it would probably see a lot more use. 109K out accelerates and outclimbs the P38, and is a real pain when you come across someone that can actually fly it.

[Benny Moore]

Still, as it is I'd call P-38L versus Me-109K nearly a fair fight.  But you're right, and that is all the more reason to allow at least a 64" P-38 (1725 hp.).  It would be preferable to have the 66" rating (~1750 hp.); 75 inches of pressure (~2000 hp.) would be very nice, but I think that, unlike 66", 75" was never officially cleared (though pilots certainly used it anyway).  While I have seen a document stating that 75" Hg. MAP was succesfully tested and would "probably" be officially cleared, the highest rating that I've seen a U.S.A.A.F. document actually clearing is 66 inches.  Moreover, the lower two power ratings are the only ones which have surviving test data, as far as I know.

[1K3]

As of right now the 109g14 is CLOSER match to 38L.

[Krusty]

If you think the 109K and the P38L are even fights, you don't fly either of them well enough to realize this isn't so.

The 109K is faster, accelerates way better, climbs almost 2x as well, turns very nicely, and as mentioned if it had a 20mm gun 90% of all 109 pilots would fly it.

The P38 only has flaps, granted even those are USuberflappen (TM), so if the speed slows down enough it can out-turn the 109K, but otherwise it's stuck with a simple rope-a-dope or loop-then-HO-shot.

The 38 does well in AH, don't get me wrong. But most of the time I'm in one I get in behind a con while he's busy on somebody else. There's very few "fair fights" (i.e. dueling rules) and if I were in one I'd think "oh crap this is going to be ugly".

[Benny Moore]

Originally posted by Krusty
The P38 only has flaps, granted even those are USuberflappen (TM)

Yes, they're called Fowler flaps.

[DblTrubl]

snip snip

Originally posted by Krusty
climbs almost 2x as well...

The P38 only has flaps, so if the speed slows down enough it can out-turn the 109K, but otherwise it's stuck with a simple rope-a-dope or loop-then-HO-shot...

But most of the time I'm in one I get in behind a con while he's busy on somebody else...

If you think the 109K and the P38L are even fights, you don't fly either of them well enough to realize this isn't so.

There's an old saying that comes to mind involving a pot and a kettle. I suggest you take the same advice you offered someone else in another thread regarding the Jug and apply it to the big Lockheed. Your understanding of its capabilities seems to be somewhat lacking.

Not saying the 109K isn't an excellent performer or that it doesn't have certain advantages it can exploit, but the 38 has angles it can work as well. They're close enough that it comes down to the pilots, as it does so often.

[Kweassa]

I support the idea.

 Perk points is a nifty inhibitor tool and a simple solution to limiting its impact on the MA.

 Give the 'default' performing P-38 as free, and then add in higher boost settings as perked option. This price will be modified from its base value according to coutnry numbers and pilot skill(using K/D).
 
 The base cost can be about 10 perks. If your country has a large numerical advantage, the price will inflate upto some 15~17perks, and if you have a K/D of over 2.0, your K/D will be directly multiplied to the modified perk cost.

 So, if you're flying with the horde and is given a 1.5 perk modifier value for perked planes, and you yourself is an excellent pilot of 4.0 K/D, if you want to fly 70" P-38L you will have to pay 10 x 1.5 x 4 = 60 perks.

 Sure, the vets may have thousands of perks in their hold. But frankly, vets will always win whether they fly a P-38L at 70" Hg, or a XP-38. A handful of vets is hardly an impacting factor in the MA.

 The only groupd of people that really matter is the average pilots, and perk prices over 20 points is definately not a price low enough to fly uber planes en masse. It will keep the numbers of 150octane pilots in check.

[Benny Moore]

One thing - a lot of those high ratings were run on ordinary 130/100 fuel.  I don't know about the higher ones, like 70" Hg., but at least 66" was run with the ordinary American and British fuel available at the time.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by DblTrubl
snip snip


There's an old saying that comes to mind involving a pot and a kettle. I suggest you take the same advice you offered someone else in another thread regarding the Jug and apply it to the big Lockheed. Your understanding of its capabilities seems to be somewhat lacking.

Not saying the 109K isn't an excellent performer or that it doesn't have certain advantages it can exploit, but the 38 has angles it can work as well. They're close enough that it comes down to the pilots, as it does so often.

I've flown the 38 enough to know it can do a lot. I've seen others fly it far better than myself as well. Don't get me wrong, I got more kills in the 38G than any other plane last tour (67 out of 300-something total). However, most of these involve tight spiral loops in the vertical (whether that's up or down) and usually need to be slow enough to require (or allow, depends on how you look at it) the use of flaps. Most of them are overshoot moves, or cut-the-merge moves.

On the other hand, if I could actually HIT with the crappy 30mm gun on the K-4 I'd be able to own a P38 in one. I've beat 38s before in lesser 109s with 20mm guns, and suspect the G-2 would make a good matchup, despite being a mid 1942 design.

The only real reason the P38 wins is because when it gets a shot it kills with a single hit. The 109K can get 5 shots and blow them all before landing a lucky hit on the 6th shot.

[Benny Moore]

Originally posted by Benny Moore
... the 109 is running at 1.8 ata, which is 1,850 horsepower.  Now if we raise the P-38's rating to the officially cleared (though not in the Pilots Manual) 66", we get about 1,750 horsepower on the P-38.  Now, imagine how much better the P-38 would perform than the Me-109 in the game, under those conditions - and it's still running a lower rating.

Of course, then the Me-109 could be raised to 1.98 ata, which does 2,000 hp.  But then the P-38 could be similarly raised to 75", which also yields about 2,000 horsepower.  ... I think it's safe to say that a 2000 hp. P-38 would do very well against a 2,000 hp. Me-109.

I must make a retraction; I hear from multiple sources in another thread that we already have the 1.98 ata Messerschmitt.  In that case, the Kurfurst is just about maxed out on power, while the P-38L is running on just about the lowest rating it ever ran.  Bring on the higher horsepower for the Lightning, and the Hundertneun fliers shall weep!

[Debonair]

78" Allison yech